From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-40470-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 25910 invoked by alias); 6 May 2005 14:21:18 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 25833 invoked from network); 6 May 2005 14:21:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM) (217.40.213.68)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 May 2005 14:21:11 -0000
Received: from mace ([192.168.1.25]) by SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211);
	 Fri, 6 May 2005 15:21:05 +0100
From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
To: "'Andreas Schwab'" <schwab@suse.de>
Cc: "'Jan Beulich'" <JBeulich@novell.com>,
	<binutils@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86: suppress emission of zero displacements in memoryoperands
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 14:26:00 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <jek6mcwihf.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
Message-ID: <SERRANOB5i5Qy2LfHxw0000026a@SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 May 2005 14:21:05.0506 (UTC) FILETIME=[D6CFD420:01C55246]
X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00260.txt.bz2

----Original Message----
>From: Andreas Schwab
>Sent: 06 May 2005 15:13

> "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com> writes:
> 
>>   I'm not sure if I've fully understood the intent of this patch, ...

> The m68k assembler is doing something similar, also known as relaxing.

  Hopefully *only* if you specify --relax on the command line, no?

>> What if someone wants to write self-modifying code that stores varying
>> offsets into that field?
> 
> In the m68k assembler you can force a field by adding an explicit size
> modifier.

  Yes, I understand that; what I'm asking is if this patch of Jan's actually
discards the field *even if* it is explicitly stated, when the offset value
is zero.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....